'Peak Farmland' Is Here, Crop Area to Diminish

[Viva_La_Revolution]

OSLO (Reuters) - The amount of land needed to grow crops worldwide is at a peak, and a geographical area more than twice the size of France will be able to return to its natural state by 2060 as a result of rising yields and slower population growth, a group of experts said on Monday.

Their report, conflicting with United Nations studies that say more cropland will be needed in coming decades to avert hunger and price spikes as the world population rises above 7 billion, said humanity had reached what it called "Peak Farmland".

More crops for use as biofuels and increased meat consumption in emerging economies such as China and India, demanding more cropland to feed livestock, would not offset a fall from the peak driven by improved yields, it calculated.

If the report is accurate, the land freed up from crop farming would be some 10 percent of what is currently in use - equivalent to 2.5 times the size of France, Europe's biggest country bar Russia, or more than all the arable land now utilized in China.

more> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=peak-farmland-is-here-crop-area-to

[AldoLeopold]

1. Have we finally reached carrying capacity?

Dare I dream???

[Speck Tater]

2. We have already overshot carrying capacity of the planet.

Experience has taught me to treat optimistic environmental forecasts with extreme skepticism.

[AldoLeopold]

3. We've overreached it long ago

but petroleum has given us false confidence. And I too always treat these optimistic forecasts with skepticism. But, I wanted a nice nap from the nightmare for a while. Selfish, I suppose.

[GliderGuider]

4. Fossil fuels have driven us right to the peak of the mountain.

It's downhill in every direction from here.

Bwahahahahah!!!!!

[4dsc]

5. Quit making biofuels for starters

I don't think that putting 60% of our current corn crop helps world hunger.

[GliderGuider]

6. Amen!

From your lips to the Goddess' ears.

[NoOneMan]

8. Can we also quit making cows?

[stuntcat]

11. right?

but noooo, we'll keep wasting the land, the water, the energy raising all these animals.
And the more of them we eat the sicker WE get.

Humanity just kills me with how lost we are.

[NoOneMan]

7. Half the human population has some form of chronic malnutrition

And this group thinks we will need less land to feed everyone?

I do not understand how our current "record yields" will be sustainable in the face of rising temperatures and potash depletion. In fact, a plethora of studies contradict this assertion.

[NickB79]

9. Problem #1: they assume crop yields won't fall

As global climate change tightens it's grip on the planet.

Ausubel's study admits to making many assumptions - rising crop yields, slowing population growth, a relatively slow rise in the use of crops to produce biofuels, moderate rises in meat consumption - that could all skew the outcome, if not accurate.

It also does not factor in any disruptions from significant climate change that U.N. studies say could affect farm output with rising temperatures, less predictable rainfall, more floods or droughts, desertification and heatwaves.

Ask a Kansas farmer how that assumption is working out so far.

[NoOneMan]

10. Or even plateau

There is some slight common sense to what he is saying, but I don't think that they are fully considering what it would entail. In order to make low-yield land in 3rd world countries increase yields significantly, they would likely rely on developed nations' farming practices: heavy machinery, evasive soil management, water-intensive irrigation, petro-derived fertilizers, etc. So, what are the secondary implications of engaging in a second "green revolution" as far as our environment is concerned (and how will those consequences reciprocally impact future yields globally?).

I don't think a study about future agriculture that doesn't account for the ecological impact of climate change can be taken seriously. I find it suspect that this study is so widely reported upon.